The unfortunate nature of war is that, sometimes, civilians get killed. For all the advances in technology and precision guided weaponry, it's still unavoidable. The alternative is to sit at home and let people walk all over you.
The unfortunate nature of war is that, sometimes, civilians get killed. For all the advances in technology and precision guided weaponry, it's still unavoidable. The alternative is to sit at home and let people walk all over you.
The unfortunate nature of war is that, sometimes, civilians get killed. For all the advances in technology and precision guided weaponry, it's still unavoidable. The alternative is to sit at home and let people walk all over you.
Blaze787
Yeah, people will walk all over you if you don't go around inflicting your arbitrary will on other nations. You'll get walked on if you don't kill children. It amazes me how mass killing is more accepted than killing on a smaller scale.
They are collateral damage so they don't count as human beings. Now if you killed them using some planes crashing against some buildings then those count as humans and the perpetrators are evil terrorists!! That's how things work.
The unfortunate nature of war is that, sometimes, civilians get killed. For all the advances in technology and precision guided weaponry, it's still unavoidable. The alternative is to sit at home and let people walk all over you.
Rhazakna
Yeah, people will walk all over you if you don't go around inflicting your arbitrary will on other nations. You'll get walked on if you don't kill children. It amazes me how mass killing is more accepted than killing on a smaller scale. I don't see the US's actions in Pakistan as arbitrary.
It sucks and I feell for not only those children but for their families as well. Unfortunately, collateral damage is a price of conflict. What is really bad about the situation (besides the innocent children who died) is that when we accidentally kill somebody we are heavily demonized by other countries as well as anti-war activists over here. On the other hand, I've personally seen entire families slaughtered on purpose in Iraq by insurgents for no other reason than the man of the house happened to help US troops do a neighborhood goodwill project such as do repairs on a school. Stuff like that is under reported.
The unfortunate nature of war is that, sometimes, civilians get killed. For all the advances in technology and precision guided weaponry, it's still unavoidable. The alternative is to sit at home and let people walk all over you.
Engrish_Major
Yeah, people will walk all over you if you don't go around inflicting your arbitrary will on other nations. You'll get walked on if you don't kill children. It amazes me how mass killing is more accepted than killing on a smaller scale. I don't see the US's actions in Pakistan as arbitrary. Oh really?
[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"] Oh really? Really. They're actually quite targeted. Carpet bombing is arbitrary. Nuclear blasts are arbitrary. Suicide bombing is arbitrary. Targeted strikes based upon intelligence using guided missiles is not arbitrary.
Kind of a misleading title, I thought you were talking about a single strike.
Anyways, I've never approved of drone attacks. I hate the idea of de-humanizing war. I may be all for guns and a strong military, but having machines do the fighting for us is wrong. It's one thing to man a tank, it's another thing to fly a remote control death machine with no real certainty of your enemy.
I understand why they are used, but I don't approve. If we are going to attack them, we should do it with boots on the ground in some form or another.
Kind of a misleading title, I thought you were talking about a single strike.
Anyways, I've never approved of drone attacks. I hate the idea of de-humanizing war. I may be all for guns and a strong military, but having machines do the fighting for us is wrong. It's one thing to man a tank, it's another thing to fly a remote control death machine with no real certainty of your enemy.
I understand why they are used, but I don't approve. If we are going to attack them, we should do it with boots on the ground in some form or another.
Wasdie
Not misleading. The title implies to drone war, not drone attack.
The unfortunate nature of war is that, sometimes, civilians get killed. For all the advances in technology and precision guided weaponry, it's still unavoidable. The alternative is to sit at home and let people walk all over you.
Blaze787
You wouldn't be saying this if it was Americans dying. Absolutely heartbreaking. Americans wonder why everyone hates them. Collateral damage my ass.
[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="Stavrogin_"] Oh really? Really. They're actually quite targeted. Carpet bombing is arbitrary. Nuclear blasts are arbitrary. Suicide bombing is arbitrary. Targeted strikes based upon intelligence using guided missiles is not arbitrary.I think you should really read the part about "arbitrary will" once again. You got it wrong.
The unfortunate nature of war is that, sometimes, civilians get killed. For all the advances in technology and precision guided weaponry, it's still unavoidable. The alternative is to sit at home and let people walk all over you.
Famiking
You wouldn't be saying this if it was Americans dying. Absolutely heartbreaking. Americans wonder why everyone hates them. Collateral damage my ass. How is it not collateral damage?
They are collateral damage so they don't count as human beings. Now if you killed them using some planes crashing against some buildings then those count as humans and the perpetrators are evil terrorists!! That's how things work.kuraimen
No ones claiming that they're not humans beings, because there difference is the intention of it.
[QUOTE="kuraimen"]They are collateral damage so they don't count as human beings. Now if you killed them using some planes crashing against some buildings then those count as humans and the perpetrators are evil terrorists!! That's how things work.alexside1
No ones claiming that they're not humans beings, because there difference is the intention of it. Collateral damage is an euphemism used by nations with technology to justify when they kill civilians. The 9/11 perpetrators could equally call the innocent people they killed with their attacks collateral damage if they could since their intention was not necessarily to kill civilians but to provoke a moral and economic wound on the US. Civilians just happened to be in the World Trade Center, Pentagon and the Capitol if they had achieved attacking that.
[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]I think you should really read the part about "arbitrary will" once again. You got it wrong.Engrish_Major
How is it arbitrary will if the strikes are against an organization that has attacked the US? How is it not arbitrary will when they're policing the world? It's not just about the drone attacks, it's the whole goddamn foreign policy of the US.
[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]I think you should really read the part about "arbitrary will" once again. You got it wrong.Stavrogin_
How is it arbitrary will if the strikes are against an organization that has attacked the US? How is not arbitrary will when they're policing the world? It's not just about the drone attacks, it's the whole goddamn foreign policy of the US. This thread is about Pakistan and drone strikes - which is what I was talking about. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.
[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]I think you should really read the part about "arbitrary will" once again. You got it wrong.Stavrogin_
How is it arbitrary will if the strikes are against an organization that has attacked the US? How is not arbitrary will when they're policing the world? It's not just about the drone attacks, it's the whole goddamn foreign policy of the US. AMEN!
[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] How is it not collateral damage? Just because it's collateral damage doesn't mean the US is innocent. You honestly (sane) person looking at this will say "well, it's not like they tried to kill my kids, it was an accident, so it's okay". You'd think there'd be some form of justice, but nope, to American officials these people are but numbers on a spreadsheet. Demons. Then when the West gets attacked, it's all this "they hate us for our freedoms" BS all over again.
[QUOTE="Famiking"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] How is it not collateral damage? Just because it's collateral damage doesn't mean the US is innocent. You honestly (sane) person looking at this will say "well, it's not like they tried to kill my kids, it was an accident, so it's okay". You'd think there'd be some form of justice, but nope, to American officials these people are but numbers on a spreadsheet. Demons. Then when the West gets attacked, it's all this "they hate us for our freedoms" BS all over again. AMEN again m friend!
[QUOTE="Famiking"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] How is it not collateral damage? Just because it's collateral damage doesn't mean the US is innocent. You honestly (sane) person looking at this will say "well, it's not like they tried to kill my kids, it was an accident, so it's okay". You'd think there'd be some form of justice, but nope, to American officials these people are but numbers on a spreadsheet. Demons. Then when the West gets attacked, it's all this "they hate us for our freedoms" BS all over again. Yes, the "they hate us for our freedoms" line is BS, however we are not equal to our targets. They (as in Al Qaeda) targets civilians as it's primary objective. We do not target civilians intentionally.
The drone attacks seem pointless, all you're gonna do is piss off Pakistanis which will lead them to becoming militants. Without boots on the ground nothing is going to change.
[QUOTE="Famiking"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] How is it not collateral damage? Just because it's collateral damage doesn't mean the US is innocent. You honestly (sane) person looking at this will say "well, it's not like they tried to kill my kids, it was an accident, so it's okay". You'd think there'd be some form of justice, but nope, to American officials these people are but numbers on a spreadsheet. Demons. Then when the West gets attacked, it's all this "they hate us for our freedoms" BS all over again. When did I state that the U.S. was innocent?
[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]I think you should really read the part about "arbitrary will" once again. You got it wrong.Engrish_Major
How is it arbitrary will if the strikes are against an organization that has attacked the US? By that logic 9/11 was justified because of American foreign policy. The crimes of a few does not justify mass slaughter.
[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]I think you should really read the part about "arbitrary will" once again. You got it wrong.Rhazakna
How is it arbitrary will if the strikes are against an organization that has attacked the US? By that logic 9/11 was justified because of American foreign policy. The crimes of a few does not justify mass slaughter. I would never condone the targeted killing of thousands of civilians as the primary target. I'm not sure why you're trying to make this parallel, but it doesn't work.
[QUOTE="alexside1"][QUOTE="kuraimen"]They are collateral damage so they don't count as human beings. Now if you killed them using some planes crashing against some buildings then those count as humans and the perpetrators are evil terrorists!! That's how things work.kuraimen
No ones claiming that they're not humans beings, because there difference is the intention of it. Collateral damage is an euphemism used by nations with technology to justify when they kill civilians. The 9/11 perpetrators could equally call the innocent people they killed with their attacks collateral damage if they could since their intention was not necessarily to kill civilians but to provoke a moral and economic wound on the US. Civilians just happened to be in the World Trade Center, Pentagon and the Capitol if they had achieved attacking that.
No it isn't. They don't go around killing civilians intentionally.
I don't understand the logic behind using drones while attempting counter insurgency. From a moral standpoint this is horrific, but even from a strategic standpoint it makes absolutely no sense. You aren't going to win the hearts and minds of a population by going after insurgents in such an indiscriminate fashion.
[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] When did I state that the U.S. was innocent? When you call all this collateral damage, it is what you are implying. If you read the thread title and thought "collateral damage", there's a problem. [QUOTE="Engrish_Major"] Yes, the "they hate us for our freedoms" line is BS, however we are not equal to our targets. They (as in Al Qaeda) targets civilians as it's primary objective. We do not target civilians intentionally. But the US ends up killing more civillians anyway. That probably doesn't mean much to you, but if the roles were reversed, we all know which side the West would be rooting for. Hypocrisy.
[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]How is it arbitrary will if the strikes are against an organization that has attacked the US?Engrish_Major
By that logic 9/11 was justified because of American foreign policy. The crimes of a few does not justify mass slaughter. I would never condone the targeted killing of thousands of civilians as the primary target. I'm not sure why you're trying to make this parallel, but it doesn't work. So it's the intention, not the result that matters? Okay, then by that logic the killing of American soldiers is justifiable.
[QUOTE="Rhazakna"] So it's the intention, not the result that matters? Okay, then by that logic the killing of American soldiers is justifiable. Of course the result matters. Here are the results... Of the reported 2300-2800 people killed in the drone strikes, 168 of them were children, with twice that many verified as being civilians. Name me one war in the industrial age that has had that low of a civilian to militant death ratio.
I don't understand the logic behind using drones while attempting counter insurgency. From a moral standpoint this is horrific, but even from a strategic standpoint it makes absolutely no sense. You aren't going to win the hearts and minds of a population by going after insurgents in such an indiscriminate fashion. -Sun_Tzu-
It's because Pakistan is incompetent and can't fight their own terriosts. If it wasn't for these drone strikes the militants in Pakistan would be safe, and they could freely go to Afghanastain attack NATO troops and than go back to there safe haven in Pakistan. Pakistan really needs to step up their game and start eliminating the militants in their own country.
[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]How is it arbitrary will if the strikes are against an organization that has attacked the US?Engrish_Major
By that logic 9/11 was justified because of American foreign policy. The crimes of a few does not justify mass slaughter. I would never condone the targeted killing of thousands of civilians as the primary target. I'm not sure why you're trying to make this parallel, but it doesn't work. Really, so the difference is intent not the result itself? If your intent was to kill militants and ended up killing a bunch of civilians your intent justifies the slaughter? Heck, despite what mainstream media is saying, the people killed on 9/11 were collateral damage by the same logic. The Twin Towers were one of the tallest buildings back then and a symbol of American economic might, the Pentagon a symbol of military might and the White House a symbol of America's political power. No conspiracy theory here just common sense, don't you think if Al Qaeda's sole purpose was civilian casualties and they were smart enough to orchestrate such a complex attack it would've occurred to them that lets say a stadium was a better target.
[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"] Really, so the difference is intent not the result itself? If your intent was to kill militants and ended up killing a bunch of civilians your intent justifies the slaughter? Heck, despite what mainstream media is saying, the people killed on 9/11 were collateral damage. The Twin Towers were the tallest buildings back then and a symbol of American economic might, the Pentagon a symbol of military might and the White House a symbol of America's political power. No conspiracy theory here just common sense, don't you think if Al Qaeda's sole purpose was civilian casualties and they were smart enough to orchestrate such a complex attack it would've occurred to them that a stadium was a better target. See my post above about results. And of course intent matters. And I don't care about "symbols". I was talking about civilians, not what building symbolize.
[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="alexside1"]No ones claiming that they're not humans beings, because there difference is the intention of it.alexside1
Collateral damage is an euphemism used by nations with technology to justify when they kill civilians. The 9/11 perpetrators could equally call the innocent people they killed with their attacks collateral damage if they could since their intention was not necessarily to kill civilians but to provoke a moral and economic wound on the US. Civilians just happened to be in the World Trade Center, Pentagon and the Capitol if they had achieved attacking that.
No it isn't. They don't go around killing civilians intentionally.
I never said the word "intentionally" in my post. And like I said the 9/11 perpetrators could use the same excuse to call civilian casualties collateral damage: "We didn't kill those people intentionally, they just happened to be between our targets and us".
It's because Pakistan is incompetent and can't fight their own terriosts. If it wasn't for these drone strikes the militants in Pakistan would be safe, and they could freely go to Afghanastain attack NATO troops and than go back to there safe haven in Pakistan. Pakistan really needs to step up their game and start eliminating the militants in their own country.
RAGINGxPONY
Well, if the Taliban kill civillians and the US also kills civillians, maybe Pakistan is smart in watching them kill each other.
[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]See my post above about results. And of course intent matters. And I don't care about "symbols". I was talking about civilians, not what building symbolize. So 9/11 is justified? Their main intent was not killing civilians so that should make it okay by your logic. No...
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]I don't understand the logic behind using drones while attempting counter insurgency. From a moral standpoint this is horrific, but even from a strategic standpoint it makes absolutely no sense. You aren't going to win the hearts and minds of a population by going after insurgents in such an indiscriminate fashion. RAGINGxPONY
It's because Pakistan is incompetent and can't fight their own terriosts. If it wasn't for these drone strikes the militants in Pakistan would be safe, and they could freely go to Afghanastain attack NATO troops and than go back to there safe haven in Pakistan. Pakistan really needs to step up their game and start eliminating the militants in their own country.
But that's a false dichotomy. We don't need to use drone strikes to fight these militants. In fact, drone strikes are probably the most counterproductive way to fight these militants. Our entire strategy in the region is based on protecting civilians. That is fundamental to any counter insurgency.
[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Collateral damage is an euphemism used by nations with technology to justify when they kill civilians. The 9/11 perpetrators could equally call the innocent people they killed with their attacks collateral damage if they could since their intention was not necessarily to kill civilians but to provoke a moral and economic wound on the US. Civilians just happened to be in the World Trade Center, Pentagon and the Capitol if they had achieved attacking that.kuraimen
No it isn't. They don't go around killing civilians intentionally.
I never said the word "intentionally" in my post. And like I said the 9/11 perpetrators could use the same excuse to call civilian casualties collateral damage: "We didn't kill those people intentionally, they just happened to be between our targets and us".
That is the dumbest thing I think I have ever heard, the terriosts knew that when they crashed those planes they we're killing everyone on board and that was their intention. And they knew everyone on board were civilians. Big difference from that and colleteral damage caused from drone strikes.
[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"] So it's the intention, not the result that matters? Okay, then by that logic the killing of American soldiers is justifiable. Of course the result matters. Here are the results... Of the reported 2300-2800 people killed in the drone strikes, 168 of them were children, with twice that many verified as being civilians. Name me one war in the industrial age that has had that low of a civilian to militant death ratio. It amazes me how war will cause people to just let go of reason. If hundreds of American civilians, many of them children were being killed, but far more soldiers had died, would you be saying "Wow, that's a low civilian to soldier ratio." Would that be what matters? I'm not sure why you're bringing up other industrialized wars, I made no comment abut them.
[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]See my post above about results. And of course intent matters. And I don't care about "symbols". I was talking about civilians, not what building symbolize. So 9/11 is justified? Their main intent was not killing civilians so that should make it okay by your logic. No... How do you deduce that? And I DID say that results matter!
[QUOTE="Rhazakna"] It amazes me how war will cause people to just let go of reason. If hundreds of American civilians, many of them children were being killed, but far more soldiers had died, would you be saying "Wow, that's a low civilian to soldier ratio." Would that be what matters? I'm not sure why you're bringing up other industrialized wars, I made no comment abut them. If their primary targets were military, and accidentially killed some civilians, then yes, they would be better in my eyes than an organization that kills civilians indiscriminately and intentionally.
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]I don't understand the logic behind using drones while attempting counter insurgency. From a moral standpoint this is horrific, but even from a strategic standpoint it makes absolutely no sense. You aren't going to win the hearts and minds of a population by going after insurgents in such an indiscriminate fashion. -Sun_Tzu-
It's because Pakistan is incompetent and can't fight their own terriosts. If it wasn't for these drone strikes the militants in Pakistan would be safe, and they could freely go to Afghanastain attack NATO troops and than go back to there safe haven in Pakistan. Pakistan really needs to step up their game and start eliminating the militants in their own country.
But that's a false dichotomy. We don't need to use drone strikes to fight these militants. In fact, drone strikes are probably the most counterproductive way to fight these militants. Our entire strategy in the region is based on protecting civilians. That is fundamental to any counter insurgency.
Yeah we don't need to, but it helps. These drone strikes are responible for the deaths of many Taliban leaders and militants. Thus weakening the Taliban making it easier for the forces in Afghanastain to do their job.
[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="Stavrogin_"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]See my post above about results. And of course intent matters. And I don't care about "symbols". I was talking about civilians, not what building symbolize. So 9/11 is justified? Their main intent was not killing civilians so that should make it okay by your logic. No... How do you deduce that? And I DID say that results matter! It's pretty simple, the sole purpose of the people that hit the Pentagon and WTC was not civilian casualties, ergo by your logic the people who died on 9/11 were collateral damage.
Log in to comment